Release No. 0035.04
Dr. J.B. Penn, Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services and other USDA and FDA Officials Press Briefing on BSE at the American
Embassy
|
Tokyo, Japan - January 22, 2004–
EMBASSY PRESS SPOKESMAN: Ladies and Gentlemen, good afternoon. Welcome.
My name is Michael Boyle, the press attaché of the Embassy. This
afternoon we have an on-the-record briefing by the team that has arrived
from the United States to undertake discussions with the Japanese government
on beef imports and the BSE question. They’re here this afternoon
to give you as much information as they can on U.S. actions in response
to the discovery of BSE in one cow in the United States, and they have asked
me to remind you that they do not want to carry on a negotiation through
the media this afternoon. So they will probably defer commenting on what
will happen tomorrow. However, there will be a press conference following
the discussions tomorrow, when we can go over those issues. So without saying
anything further, let me turn this briefing over to Dr. J.B. Penn, Under
Secretary of Agriculture.
DR. PENN: Well, thank you very much, Michael.
Thank you all very much for being here this afternoon. We appreciate the
opportunity to visit with you and to try to inform you more about the situation
surrounding the one BSE-positive animal that was found in the United States,
and about the actions that we have taken in response to that. As Michael
indicated, our delegation is here for discussions with officials of the
Japanese government. We are specifically here to talk about the reopening
of the Japanese market following the ban on U.S. beef after the Dec. 23
announcement of one BSE-positive cow that was of Canadian origin. We are
also here to inform the Japanese officials about the investigation surrounding
that cow, and also to inform them about the additional actions that the
U.S. government has taken, and announced on Dec. 30, that further enhance
the safety of the U.S. beef supply.
Now, with me this afternoon are colleagues from the U.S. government.
On my right is Dr. Lester Crawford. Dr. Crawford is the Deputy Commissioner
of the Food and Drug Administration. That is the agency that regulates
livestock feed in the United States. On his right is Dr. Merle Pierson.
Dr. Pierson is the Deputy Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety.
And on my left is Dr. Chuck Lambert. Dr. Lambert is the Deputy Under Secretary
of Agriculture in the marketing and regulatory programs area. Dr. Pierson
is responsible for food safety, and Dr. Lambert is responsible for the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, our APHIS agency, which is
responsible for animal health. So we have individuals here today who have
responsibilities in the major areas that are concerned with BSE and with
the resumption of trade.
Now, we plan to proceed here today with each person making some very brief
remarks, and then we want to save most of the time for interaction with
you. We’ll try to respond, as Michael said, to your questions to
the extent that we possibly can. We have in our discussions, a few, we
think, critical messages that we want to try to convey. One of the first
messages that’s in my area of responsibility, of course, is the
importance of trade, the importance of the Japanese market to the U.S.
beef industry. Last year, we exported about $1 billion worth of beef to
the Japanese market. That’s about one-third of all of our beef exports.
This is an important market; it’s a big market; it’s one that
we have worked very hard to develop over more than two decades. We’ve
done so in cooperation with your industry, with your food service industry,
and we want to stay in this market. We want to continue to be a factor
in this market. We have been pleased thus far to learn that Japanese consumers
are continuing to purchase U.S. beef, that there has not been any shift
away from the product, and we very much appreciate the loyalty of the
Japanese consumers. We also recognize the adversity that this supply disruption
has caused to the Japanese importers, the retailers, the Japanese food
industry, and we hope that we can soon move beyond that. Again, I do want
to say that we very much value this market, and we want to work with the
government of Japan, and with all aspects of the industry to find a solution
so that we can be back in this market as quickly as is possible.
A second major part of our message is to say that U.S. beef is safe.
We certainly want to reassure Japanese consumers that our regulatory system
produces a very safe product. It has for many, many years, and we continue
to strengthen that system as time goes by. I would say again, just to
remind everybody, that we need to keep some perspective on what has occurred.
The United States was a provisionally BSE-free country before this one
cow was found. This cow turns out to be of Canadian origin, and immediately
after that, we took steps to further strengthen our regulatory system.
We announced on Dec. 30 more than a half-dozen bold, aggressive measures,
and my colleagues are going to describe those in some more detail for
you.
Now the upshot of all of this is that U.S. consumers have strong confidence
in the integrity of the U.S. food supply, and certainly in the integrity
of U.S. beef. There was a poll that was released just a few days ago that
showed that 97 percent of American consumers are aware of BSE. This is
a very high number. That same poll showed that 90 percent of U.S. consumers
responded that they have confidence in U.S. beef and in the U.S. regulatory
system. So the U.S. consumer attitude is being mirrored by the Japanese
consumer attitude. Both are continuing to consume U.S. beef.
We have had a BSE-prevention system in place in the United States for
a long time. We have had a surveillance system, a testing system, for
livestock in place in the United States since 1989. We have had a ban
on feeding meat and bone meal to cattle since 1997. That has been in place
now for almost seven years, and as you know, that puts a strict firewall
in place to prevent the transmission of this disease from one animal to
another, because the only known way for spreading this disease is through
livestock feed.
And then third – and I will stop and turn to my colleagues –
our third message is on the requirements of having sound science as the
basis for any regulatory program, and certainly to guide our trading actions.
We have a science-based regulatory system. We think that that’s
the basis for any strong regulatory system, and it enables you to focus
the always scarce resources to the place where they can be most effective.
This is also the means by which we want to manage our trade relations,
and that will be part of our discussions with our colleagues in the Japanese
government. This recognizes the role of international standard-setting
bodies like the World Animal Health Organization, the so-called OIE, and
it also is the basis for having a set of trading rules that are based
on something solid that can be recognized by everyone around the world.
So again, our three big messages are that this is a very important market
for us, and we want to be a continued presence here. We want to work with
people in a cooperative way so that we can resume trade as quickly as
possible. Our second message is that U.S. beef is safe. That is evidenced
by the behavior of the American consuming public and the Japanese consuming
public. And the third, that sound science has to be the basis for the
regulatory and trading system. So with that now, I’m going to stop,
and I’m going to turn to my colleague, Dr. Crawford and ask him
for some brief remarks.
DR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, Under Secretary Penn. It’s my pleasure
to talk to you today – and I appreciate the opportunity for being
here – about the parts of this protection system that the Food and
Drug Administration, or FDA, has responsibility for. The primary thing
that we do, in this scheme of things, is to prevent contamination from
coming through the animal feed supply. The Food and Drug Administration
has, since its earliest inception in 1906, been concerned about the transmission
of various items through feed, including bacteria, viruses, contaminants,
and our system has been in place since that time. When BSE became an international
entity that was well recognized and somewhat characterized in 1989, we
began doing some of the things that we later put into regulation. In 1997,
we put in place an animal feed ban, which prevents meat and bone meal
or animal protein from ruminants, particularly cattle, from being fed
back to ruminants. That has been the subject of an intensive regulatory
program, which we have now just evaluated in the wake of finding this
one Canadian cow in the United States. And we find that we have 99 percent
compliance with the ban. In the United States, 99 percent compliance is
a statistical risk-based analysis. It means that we have virtually no
feed meal that is out of compliance. In the early days of the ban, in
1997, we had difficulty deploying enough people to deal with this situation,
and there was an adverse report that we didn’t have 100 percent
compliance. But I’m happy to report to you that since 2001, we have
had majority compliance, and now we have complete compliance. There is
no program that FDA administers that has a higher compliance rate. Those
figures, including the number of visits and the actions that we have taken
against companies that are out of compliance, are publicly available.
They are also available in summary form on the FDA website. This is an
open, transparent means of policing public health, and it is working.
In the U.S., the food and drug law does give us strong teeth to enforce
these bans. The one company that has been found out of compliance repeatedly
has been now subjected to the corrective action that our law so conveniently
gives us. We’re able to fine up to $2 million per count for violations.
This can sometimes go to $2 million a day until a company comes into compliance.
We’re also able to assess prison terms of five to 10 years for each
violation, and we do that regularly each year. As I say, this particular
program finds complete compliance, and since, as Undersecretary Penn said,
this is most likely the way that infection would come to the American
herd, we point out confidently that the American herd has not been infected,
as far as we know to this point, because the two cases that have caused
all the difficulties have been Canadian cases. We, however, want to continue
to do the right thing with our ban, and the way to do it correctly is
to enforce it.
We’re able to deploy sufficient personnel, sufficient resources,
funding, and also the rule of law, in order to make sure that it does
work. So I can say with confidence that the animal feed ban is working.
We don’t know of another country where it's working any better.
We don’t know of other countries that have had it in place longer
and have a higher effectiveness rate. I would be very pleased to take
questions about that. I understand there’s been some misunderstanding
about the feed ban over the last few years, and we’re here to take
questions and elaborate on what we’re doing in that regard. Thank
you.
DR. PENN: OK, we’ll now turn to Dr. Lambert.
DR. LAMBERT: Thank you J.B. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and
to explain the role of the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
or APHIS, in conducting the investigation of this event in cooperation
with our counterparts both in state government and in the Canadian government,
and conducting the investigation that traced this cow back to Canada.
The trace-back was conducted through investigation both of a paper trail,
identifying sales records and other records, and also then confirmed through
DNA testing, going back to the sire of record in the original herd where
this cow was born.
APHIS and our Canadian counterparts are aggressively continuing to pursue
an investigation to look for other animals and to determine how this infection
occurred. It’s important to note that this cow is approximately
six and a half years old. It was born in Canada prior to when the feed
ban was implemented, and was entered into the U.S. in August of 2001 at
approximately the age of four and a half years. We’re continuing
to very aggressively look for other animals that were in the original
group of 81 animals that were exported from Canada to the United States,
and to track other animals that might have remained in Canada. We are
also conducting a tracking investigation of 17 younger animals, replacement
heifers that came from the same herd as this cow did in Canada, and that
came to the United States at a later date. 129 animals from the index
herd, or the initial herd where this cow with BSE came from, have been
depopulated. All of those animals have been tested negative for BSE, using
both the preliminary test and a confirmatory test. So those 129 animals
have been confirmed negative for BSE. We have also depopulated another
39 animals from a second herd in Washington state. Those animals have
all tested negative using a preliminary test for BSE, and we expect confirmatory
tests on those animals by the end of this week.
A team of international specialists on BSE is in the United States. They
are evaluating our investigation, and they’re expected to issue
their final report, along with recommendations, by the 4th of February.
Consistent with the principles of science-based risk assessment, USDA
has conducted testing of the highest-risk population, as J.B. said, since
1989, and during the past two years we have tested this high-risk population
at levels that is 47 times the recommended testing levels in the OIE guidelines.
When BSE was discovered on Dec. 23, it was determined that increased surveillance
testing was indicated to determine if there were additional cases of BSE
in the U.S., so USDA announced at that time that we would again double
the number of tests above previous years. This action is consistent with
actions that have been taken in other countries where an initial case
of BSE is identified, and then additional surveillance is taken to identify
the prevalence of a disease in the at-risk or the high-risk population.
So with that, I would be glad to answer any questions, as we get through
the initial comments. Thank you very much.
DR. PENN: OK, thank you. Now we turn to Dr. Pierson.
DR. PIERSON: Thank you Under Secretary Penn. Good afternoon. The agency
that I represent for the United States government is the Food Safety Inspection
Service. It is also called FSIS. FSIS is responsible for assuring the
safety and wholesomeness of all meat, poultry and egg products that are
produced in the United States or that are imported to the United States.
This includes the 35 million cattle that are processed every year in the
United States. FSIS has 7,600 inspectors that are present daily at all
meat and poultry plants. Our inspectors examine every animal that is processed
in these plants. All cattle that are processed are examined by our inspectors.
The foundation of our food safety system is based on protecting public
health through a prevention of food safety problems and verification of
process control. It’s the responsibility of our inspectors to assure
that that happens. In order to further assure the safety of our beef supply,
the United States Department of Agriculture, Secretary Veneman, announced
on Dec. 30 additional measures that must be implemented by our beef cattle
processors, and I’ll very briefly outline some of these measures.
One of these included the immediate banning of all non-ambulatory, disabled
cattle from use in the human food supply. I want to assure you, even prior
to this announcement, that any animals that were examined by our veterinarians
and found to be sick or have some other condition where they were unsafe
to be processed for human food were not allowed to be processed. Another
measure was that for all cattle tested for BSE at the slaughter plant,
the carcasses must be held until the test results are returned, and the
animal will only be released if those test results are proven to be negative.
A third measure related to what is termed "specified-risk materials."
Scientific studies have shown that certain tissues in cattle, if they
are infected with the prion that causes BSE, are age-dependent in the
cattle – there’s a category of cattle 30 months of age and
older – the prion could be located in such things as the brain,
the spinal cord and other related tissues. In cattle under 30 months of
age, it is located in the distal ilium, a part of the small intestine.
We have implemented regulations to ban these specified risk materials
from the human food supply. A fourth area involves what’s called
"advanced meat recovery." My understanding is that this product
is not currently shipped to the Japan – it’s produced in the
United States but not shipped to Japan – and I won’t get into
the details about advanced meat recovery. I want to assure you that these
regulations are very strictly enforced. We have the authority to do so.
Companies not abiding by these regulations, their product is subject either
to recall or other actions, and the measures could be such that we could
even withdraw inspection, which means the companies could not operate.
I want to assure you that we remain confident in the safety of our meat
supply, and I want to assure you that we have a very, very serious commitment
to assuring public health. Thank you.
DR. PENN: Thank you, Dr. Pierson. I think you have heard from us what
our message is, and you’ve heard the investigation described. You’ve
heard the extraordinary measures described that we have taken. And you’ve
heard how our feed industry is regulated. So now that you have heard from
us, we’re ready to hear from you. We’d be happy to try to
respond to your questions, and I’ll try to serve here as a traffic
cop and direct them to the appropriate person.
EMBASSY PRESS OFFICER: Secretary Penn, let me remind the reporters please,
if you can give your name and your organization, and please ask your question
through the microphone so that the translators can hear it. That’s
the only way they’ll hear it.
QUESTION: I’m Yamamoto, with Asahi Shimbun newspaper. Let me speak
in Japanese please. (via interpreter) Would you like to tell me what will
happen tomorrow, briefly? Another question is about the delegation which
went to the States and Canada this month. Do you have any comment to that?
It referred to some potential risk to find some BSE cases from now on.
DR. PENN: First, let me say that we’re looking forward to the opportunity
to have thoroughgoing and wide-ranging discussions with our colleagues
in the government of Japan tomorrow, and as was stated at the beginning,
we don’t want to prejudge what the outcomes might be, nor are we
interested in negotiating through the media. We will be having a press
conference tomorrow, at the end of the day, at the end of those discussions,
and we’ll be able to give you a much more thorough description of
what transpired at those discussions.
The second part of your question related to the Japanese technical team
that was in the United States and Canada – is that correct? We have
seen only some news reports. I have not seen a report from the technical
team itself. I have seen some news reports, and it’s pretty hard
for me to comment on what their findings were without having a better
understanding of what they were. Of course, we were trying to inform that
team as to the investigation surrounding this animal. We were trying to
inform the team of the new actions that Dr. Pierson and my colleagues
have described, and how those are being implemented in the various processing
facilities. Basically, we were hoping that they would see that the system
is very sound and that it is producing a very safe product.
QUESTION (via interpreter): I have a question for Secretary Penn. The
Japanese government, concerning resumption of imports from the United
States, says that it’s important to regain consumers’ confidence.
Do you share this view, in order for the resumption of U.S. beef imports
into (Japan)? Prior to the dialog with the government tomorrow morning,
you give us this opportunity, as U.S. government authorities, you want
us to convey the message of the safety of U.S. beef supplies to Japanese
consumers. Is that the main intent of this briefing?
DR. PENN: Well, certainly that is one part. We would like for you to
convey to the Japanese consumer the safety of U.S. beef. We’re also
trying, I think, in this briefing, to provide you with sufficient evidence
so that you can, in good conscience, inform the Japanese consumers of
the safety of our beef supply. We are trying to describe what has transpired
after finding this one animal of Canadian origin, and the extraordinary
measures, and we’re trying to explain how all of those measures
further strengthen what we think was an already sound regulatory system.
Dr. Crawford?
DR. CRAWFORD: Yes, I was just going to say that consumer confidence is
a delicate balance. Our consumers in the United States are very concerned
and interested in food safety. I cannot imagine a population more interested,
more engaged and more concerned.
We do find, though, as Under Secretary Penn did mention, that they have
confidence in these measures that we are taking in order to protect the
public health and to deal with BSE. And I think one of the reasons that
consumer confidence has remained very high in the United States is because
of the extraordinarily fast information that was given out about BSE in
the U.S. As soon as the case was confirmed, the Secretaries put the information
out. The other thing, I believe, is that it’s an open, transparent
process, so that every day there has been a briefing. We continue to take
comments about the feed ban, for example. We continue to respond to questions,
to letters, and we are happy to be here in Japan to respond to the concerns
of the Japanese consumers. But I do not believe that the Japanese consumer
is any more concerned than the American consumer. The key to it is openness
and engagement. No one can tell the consumer that the food is safe and
demand that they agree that it’s safe. What we can do is have an
open dialog based on what it is we are doing, and that’s why we’re
here.
QUESTION (via interpreter): My name is Yamada from Nihon Nogyo Shimbun.
I have a question for Mr. Crawford. You talked about the feed ban, and
you said you have the safest in the world. But as far as the technical
team’s report is concerned, their conclusion is not such, according
to my understanding. For example, the feed ban is primarily done for the
large companies, and medium and small companies are not listening to it.
Cross-contamination is also a concern. In other words, some of the leftovers
for the chicken feed might be given to the cattle. So the Japanese government
is a little bit concerned about the feed ban that you talked about earlier,
and I think there is a discrepancy between the Japanese government understanding
and your understanding as to how safe the feed ban is in the U.S. is.
DR. CRAWFORD: I’ll answer the various aspects of the question in
the terms that you described them. The first thing is about the report
of the review team from Japan. We have not seen that report. We have only
seen some summaries of it or some small references to it in the press,
so we look forward to discussing that with our colleagues from Japan tomorrow.
If they have unearthed or uncovered some things that we can do in order
to make our system better, we’d be very happy to hear from that.
We have great respect for our Japanese colleagues, and whatever they’ve
concluded will be of great interest to us.
But let me respond specifically to the issue of the small firms. In the
U.S., better than 98 percent of the feed is made by large firms. What
they are referring to are those small firms that may feed an animal or
two. But let me point out to you a few realities of the U.S. process.
One is that those small feeding operations generally do not make their
own feed. If they’re large enough to be a major factor, then they
will be regulated by the FDA. It doesn’t matter how large they are,
they still have to be visited by FDA and inspected.
The other thing is that, if they are very small indeed, it is not likely
at all – in fact virtually impossible – that they would be
getting their feed ingredients from outside the United States. If they
are getting their feed ingredients from the United States, then the likelihood
of them having BSE prions in the feed is, in fact, non-existent. So we
don’t believe there is a risk.
Now, finally, the way we decide who to visit and how often to visit them
– that is these feed mills – is based on risk assessment.
We calculate what the risk is.
If a firm is producing 1 percent of the U.S. feed supply, or 10 percent
or a half a percent or whatever, they’re going to be visited very
often, because the potential for trouble is very great indeed. If a firm
violates in any way – such as cross-contamination or whatever –
then they are going to be visited virtually weekly until they get this
corrected. If they cannot get it corrected, then they will be deprived
of the right to sell feed in the United States, and we do not hesitate
to take that action. So it’s a myth that the small firms are not
regulated. No one escapes regulation from FDA in the United States.
I think the other thing that has perhaps been misunderstood is the contribution
that the very small firms make to the American feed supply. It is infinitesimally
small. But as I’ve said, I haven’t seen the report. We will
read every word of the report, and we will discuss with the authors of
the report their conclusions, and we look forward to it.
QUESTION (via interpreter): How about my question concerning leftovers
from the chicken feed given to the cattle? I think the major newspapers
in the United States also talked about it, according to my understanding.
DR. CRAWFORD: Yes, as you know, chickens, like some other animals, are
not susceptible to BSE, so they do not get the disease, and it is possible,
in the United States, for chickens to be fed protein that come from cattle.
Concerns have been raised on two fronts. One is that perhaps the chickens
don’t eat all the feed, and some of it is spilled, and it might
be re-fed to cattle. The second thing is that the feces, that is the droppings
or the gastrointestinal waste from the chickens, might harbor the prion
and be a cause of the disease. The latter point cannot be proved scientifically.
On the first point, the wastage and the refeeding to cattle, we’re
very sensitive to it and we’re doing surveys about that. We do not
believe that that is a source of problem at all in the United States,
because the use of these kinds of ingredients in cattle feed is very small
indeed. However, we’re continuing to monitor it. It is a good question
to raise, and we will make sure that this is not a source of risk. Our
risk analysis of this shows that it does not rise to the level of concern.
Nothing about it would add much safety, because the feed supply in the
U.S. is already safe, and we continue to monitor on two fronts –
one is the number of animals in the U.S. that are tested, and the second
one is the compliance with the feed ban.
QUESTION (via interpreter): Mitamura with NHK. I have two questions –
anybody can answer these questions. You don’t have to go into details
about tomorrow’s discussions, but on Dec. 30 you announced additional
measures. On top of those, tomorrow is it possible that you will propose
further additional measures? My second question is concerning this particular
cow with BSE. It was born in Canada, and it was imported from Canada to
the U.S., so U.S. cattle have not been infected with BSE – is that
your understanding? I’d just like to confirm this point.
DR. PENN: Let me address the first part, and we’ll let Dr. Lambert
to address the second part. We have, as I indicated, announced a half
dozen new regulations on Dec. 30, and we think that those regulations
enormously strengthen an already strong regulatory system, and we think
that those provide a lot of equivalent measures to what is being done
in the Japanese system.
So one of the things that we will be doing tomorrow is more fully informing
our Japanese colleagues about those measures and the science that underpins
them and how we think that those are equivalent to some of the things
that have been discussed by the Japanese officials.
DR. LAMBERT: With respect to the cow that was identified with BSE, she
was born in a dairy herd in Alberta, Canada, prior to the feed ban going
into effect in Canada, and that has been tracked and confirmed both by
U.S. and Canadian government officials, using sales records and also DNA
testing to the sire used in the herd in Canada. That dairy herd was dispersed.
The owners were at an age where they were ready to retire, so they dispersed
that cow herd, and 82 or 81 animals from that herd were in the initial
group of animals that were exported to the United States. So we have definitively
identified that cow as being from Canada. That being said, we have increased
surveillance testing in the high-risk population in the U.S. to further
clarify, further identify, the possibility of any other cases in the U.S.,
and we’ll continue to conduct that surveillance on a science-based
risk assessment foundation.
QUESTION (via interpreter): My name is Ishihara from TV Tokyo. You talked
about consumer confidence being in a delicate balance, but when we think
about the Japanese consumers, and you talk about the scientific basis
and it is safe, I wonder if you really believe consumer confidence can
be obtained on just the scientific basis you talked about, or do you have
any other, additional measures to gain consumer confidence in Japan?
DR. CRAWFORD: Thank you again for the question. As I said, consumer confidence
is a delicate thing. No one can tell the consumers, "You must be
confident." They have to decide they’re going to be confident
themselves. I believe, though, you have to, as government officials and
also representatives of the United States government, we have to have
something to discuss with the consumers. We can’t be psychologists
or whatever. We have to have something to talk to them about, and the
best thing to talk to them about is what are the risks, how great are
the risks. We don’t live in a risk-free world. We recognize that
the public has a right to know about the foods they consume. They have
a right to ask questions, whatever they are. And most of all, they have
a right to answers. But the answers that we give them must be based on
risk assessment and our evaluation of what the public health threat is,
and we have to put that out to them in a transparent, understandable form,
so that they can rebut it, or reject it or ask more questions and say,
"Perhaps you’re wrong. Just because you’re the U.S. government
doesn’t mean you’re right." And ask more questions, and
perhaps even suggest more research than might be done. At FDA, as I’m
sure you know, we have this institution called the Comment Period, so
that the public makes comments about everything we do. Sometimes we get
20,000 comments on a single proposal, and we have to address every one
of them. Our law requires that even if 19,000 of those comments are the
same comment, we still have to acknowledge each person that commented
and say what they said in a categorical way and give an answer. The answer
might not be the one that they want, but rather than say to them, "Don’t
worry, be happy," it’s better for us to say to them, "We
think you should have confidence in this – or you should not have
confidence in this – because of the risk assessment that we perform."
So risk assessment these days is the language of science. It’s not
useful to say that something is science-based, because the best synonym
for science is knowledge, but when you say it’s risk assessment-based,
you’re meaning the same thing, but you have something that everyone
can digest, discuss, talk about and raise objections to. It just reduces
consumer advocacy to a useful dialog, rather than one where … All
too often in the past, like in the 1960's, 70's and 80's when everyone
was in a debate with each other, and it didn’t seem to be a constructive
debate. Risk assessment is a chance to make it constructive.
DR. PIERSON: I might add, for example, that the rules that were announced
by Secretary Veneman – it was Jan. 9 when she announced the rules,
which became effective on Jan. 12 – all these rules are subject
to public comment. We have a 90-day comment period for each and every
rule. Even though they are in place now, the scientific community, consumer
groups, individuals and all others can provide comment to these rules
and give us their opinion on the effectiveness of the rules and whether
or not they serve the intended purpose.
That’s true internationally, too. On an international basis, there
may be comments to these rules.
QUESTION (via interpreter): I am Koya from NishiNippon newspaper. I have
a question to Secretary Penn. 100 percent testing is done by Japan. What
do you think about this 100 percent testing system implemented by Japan?
Do you have any comments to make about that?
DR. PENN: Well, I would just reiterate what some of my colleagues here
have said, that we think that there are equivalent ways to achieve the
same result, and if the objective of 100 percent testing is to provide
consumer confidence, we think that we have systems that are equivalent,
that will do the same thing. They’re just a different approach.
We have not embraced 100 percent testing because our resources, as everybody’s
resources, are always limited, and we think that we should use resources
where they’re the most effective, where we can spend our funds to
do the most good. The disease, this particular animal disease, doesn’t
manifest itself, most scientists agree, in animals that are younger than
30 months, so it doesn’t do much good to test animals that are below
that age, because you always get a negative finding. So we think that
it is more efficacious to test in the high-risk population, in animals
that are likely to have this disease. That is older animals, animals that
are showing some kind of central nervous system disorder. So we’re
focusing the testing that we do on the highest risk populations, and we
think that that gives us a very good possibility of discovering the disease,
if indeed it should emerge in our animal herd. But I’m not the expert
on testing, so I’ll ask one of my colleagues if they want to add
something to that.
DR. LAMBERT: I think the U.S. production system, it’s important
to recognize the type of system that our beef is produced in. The majority,
about 87 percent, of all the animals that are slaughtered in the United
States are at the age of 14-20 months of age, an average of 18 months
of age at slaughter, so just about by anyone’s definition, cattle
of that age will not exhibit signs positive to BSE. We just, as J.B. said,
do not feel that that’s an effective use of resources to test 87
percent of our population, knowing that we’re very, very likely
to receive that many zeroes and that many negative results. So again,
focusing on the high-risk population, where the risk of the disease being
prevalent is, is where we’ve chosen to focus our resources. We have
increased testing of that population, subsequent to the discovery of this
one incident, just to further evaluate the potential for presence of the
disease in that high-risk population.
QUESTION (via interpreter): Mayumi Negishi with The Japan Times. I just
want to confirm a few basic questions. What do you estimate would be the
additional cost of implementing the Japanese-style 100 percent testing
system? You say that we don’t live in a risk-free world. Can you
see any holes in the 100 percent testing system, potential holes in the
Japanese system?
DR. PENN: Well, this testing is a very critical part of our discussions,
and I know it’s going to be a critical part of the discussions that
relate to reopening this market. So we want to take some time here, if
we can, and fully explain this, so I’m going to ask Dr. Lambert,
first, to comment, and then my other colleagues to add to this, because
we want to make sure that you fully understand our thinking on this testing.
DR. LAMBERT: I think there are two different philosophies on the approach
to testing. Our approach has been surveillance, science-based, working
to determine the presence of the disease and to evaluate whether or not,
and to the extent that we may have that disease present in our cattle
population. The other approach, then, is for food safety, where those
animals are tested and some form of assurance that that animal is in fact
disease-free. But even then, testing is not a 100 percent sure indicator
of the safety of that product. So it’s a matter of approach. As
has been said, we think there are equivalent ways of assuring the safety
of the product. The additional measures that have been taken, in addition
to the measures that were already in place, are in an effort to achieve
that same equivalent end-point in safety, and those are the discussions
that we will continue to have here over the next day.
DR. PENN: Could you address cost? Just talk a little bit about that.
DR. LAMBERT: The estimated cost, not just for the test but transportation
and lab work, is approximately $50 per head, is the estimate that our
industry has given us. As I said, we process nearly 30 million animals
in that young age, so we’re talking a billion and a half dollars
a year potential cost to an industry, with a very, very high likelihood
that we are going to receive negative results on all of those tests. Again,
we just feel that that’s an expenditure of resources that would
much better be focused in other areas to either improve confidence or
enhance the safety of an already very safe product.
DR. PIERSON: As Dr. Lambert has explained, the testing is used for surveillance
purposes. It’s used as a determinate of animal health. The public
health protection, as I explained in my opening remarks, comes through
preventive systems, and these preventive systems include the banning of,
for example, any potential high-risk materials from the human food supply,
and that is what we believe will make the difference, to assure that the
food supply is free of these materials and that we’ve effectively
addressed those and effectively dealt with those. In addition, there are
a number of other firewalls that are in place in order to provide protection,
and Dr. Crawford, would you like to address that?
DR. CRAWFORD: Yeah, the real question becomes, does 100 percent animal
testing give you any more level of protection? Every country, no matter
what country it is, has only a certain amount of resources, that is money
and personnel, to devote to disease prevention and public health programs.
We have found that it is far better in our system to put in an overall
prevention program, rather than waiting to test and find it. So that if
you have a strong effective feed ban, and if you’re taking the other
measures that my colleagues have discussed, and Secretary Veneman from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced, and you make sure that
those programs are 100 percent effective or as close as you can possibly
get, then you don’t really need to test 100 percent of the cattle
in our system.
This is something we are fully willing to discuss with our colleagues
from the government of Japan. Again, we both learn from each other. In
so many of these food safety situations down through the years I’ve
been working with. I remember a couple of others that were very similar
where we worked together, and we traded the science and we learned a lot
of things. But the modern way of protecting against these kinds of things
is a systems-based approach, where you identify what the hazard is and
you prevent the hazard from occurring. If you wait until the animal is
virtually in the slaughterhouse to do the testing, then it’s likely
that you’re not going to be preventing it like you should. You’re
just sort of catching it when it’s too late.
The other thing is that testing all the animals is something that we
also need to understand better, because animals under 30 months of age,
for example the majority of what we send to the international market,
would be animals, as Dr. Lambert has said, that are 18 months of age.
What you would find there with testing… It is not clear to me how
that would be useful, because remember, the test takes the brain tissue,
and if any activity were occurring at that particular stage in the development
of BSE – remember they would not have BSE at that age – then
it would be in the tonsils, perhaps, or maybe in the small intestine.
It would not likely be in the nervous system. So I think, again, you would
miss it, and it is much better to prevent it than it is to wait and try
to catch it, I think.
QUESTION (via interpreter): Yamamoto from Asahi Newspaper once again.
I have two questions. First, your relationship with Canada. I'd like to
direct these questions to Secretary Penn. This particular cow originated
in Canada. This is your understanding, but maybe the Canadian-American
markets are so integrated, and these two countries emphasize this integration
of these two markets, so in that connection I talked about this report
of the Japanese Agricultural ministries' experts, their reports, but the
meat and bone meals that this particular cow was given may be, may have
gone to the United States, so how can we distinguish the safety level
in Canada and the safety level in the United States when these two markets
are so integrated? Do you think that this particular issue will have some
negative impact on the trading relationship between Japan and the United
States, in connection with WTO, do you think that this issue may become
a kind of a trade issue between Japan and the United States in the future?
DR. PENN: Well, first let me say that I agree with your observation that
the North American market is an integrated livestock beef market. We do
have cross border investment, we have movement of product among countries,
we have movement of cattle among countries. But the actions that we have
taken and the actions that the Canadians have taken after finding these
two animals that tested positive for BSE are almost identical, so the
amelioration measures, the remedial measures that have been taken to strengthen
our systems are almost identical. That also includes the earlier feed
ban. Canada instituted a ban on ruminant feed at about the same time that
United States did, and as for the report that maybe some of this feed
that was prepared in Canada was exported to the United States…we
just think that that was not the case, and in any event the regulations
would have been in place after the feed ban was installed, so it couldn't
have been contaminated feed.
Now as to the larger question about our trading relationship and the ongoing
discussions in the WTO, no, we don't want this BSE incident to become
an impediment in our ongoing cooperation in other areas – not just
in trade, but in all other areas – and I think we have always found,
as Dr. Crawford indicated a moment ago, that we have a solid relationship
with Japan, and when people of good will come together and address a common
problem they generally can find a solution. So we have lots of important
work to do in the Doha round of the WTO talks.
We are looking to have the cooperation of Japan in successfully moving
those talks along during this year and concluding them quickly, so we
don't want this to become a major irritant in our relationship, and I
see no reason that it should. I think, again, that we can sit down and
find a practical solution that will be satisfactory to both sides.
QUESTION (via interpreter): To my last question, are you saying that
it is simply not feasible to implement the kind of 100% testing that Japan
is demanding?
DR. PENN: Well, it's just a question of where you're going to spend your
resources, whether or not it makes more sense when you do the risk assessments
to spend your resources in prevention programs like the feed ban and these
other things, or whether you would spend your resources in the testing.
I believe most risk assessments will reveal for any country that it is
better to do the prevention program. To do both would be extraordinarily
expensive, and again you'd have to raise the question of whether or not
this is the best use of resources and what will the end result be. Is
100% testing going to give you more protection, or is it not? If consumer
organizations and others are demanding 100% testing, and there is a better
way to give them the protection they seek, then I think it's our obligation,
and the US government and any other government that chooses to go the
way we go, to make those explanations, again, along risk assessment lines.
DR. CRAWFORD: I think I would just add to that again this notion of equivalence.
There are lots of different ways sometimes to achieve the same end result,
to achieve the same solution, and we all have as our objective providing
our consuming publics with a safe food supply. So we have different regulations
and different regulatory procedures that we think provide that. The Japanese
system is a little different. Other countries have little different systems.
But they can be equivalent, in the sense that we can, using science again,
do things differently and still achieve the same result, which is a very
safe beef supply for the consuming populations.
DR. PENN: I think we are about to wear you down…no, here are two
more
QUESTION (via interpreter): I'm Fukuda from Jiji News Agency. I have
a question for Secretary Penn about 100% testing. If this cannot be done
in the United States, for those cows exported to Japan, maybe only for
those cows, can you do something close to 100% testing, some additional
measures that may be close to 100% testing? Is it possible for the United
States to implement such a measure?
DR. PENN: Well again, I think the question is not exactly whether it's
possible. I think it would be possible to do that, but the question is
whether it's practical or whether that's the best uses of scarce resources.
One of the concerns that our industry has, of course, is with the creation
of two-tier systems where you have a set of standards and requirements
for one market and you have a different set of standards and requirements
for the domestic market. In order to provide product to those two markets
it often becomes very costly. You have to have different systems in place,
and so the industries don't look with favor upon these two-tier systems.
But that doesn't mean that there are not procedures by which you try to
differentiate your product for a particular market. I mean lots of consumers,
lots of customer markets have different specifications. They want different
products, or they want something that's done, prepared, in a little different
fashion than it might be for some other market. So you get into the blurring
of the distinction between science and marketing. You begin to blur the
distinction between these two things. So again, it's a question of trying
to examine what is the best way to do this, and can you do it in an equivalent
fashion without having to set up a two-tiered system.
EMBASSY STAFF MEMBER (speaking in Japanese, via interpreter): I am from
the Embassy PA section. There was a mistake in the translation. 87% of
the age of the cattle that are slaughtered was translated as on the average
28 months. It is 18 months, but it was translated as 28, so that is a
mistake that we would like to correct.
DR. PENN: OK, let us just say again so that where we slaughter about
35 million head of cattle each year, 87% of those animals are 30 months
of age or younger.
QUESTION (via interpreter): I am Murayama from Sankei. Between Japan
and the United States, rather than scientific differences between the
two governments vis-à-vis Japanese consumers, they will not accept
US beef without 100% testing. Is it possible to reach a compromise between
the US and Japanese governments? Even with that kind of compromise, Japanese
consumers will not accept US beef without 100% testing. Will you be prepared
for that kind of consequence?
DR. PENN: Well let me say again, I don't want to do the negotiations
through the media, but we came here, as I said at the beginning, to have
wide-ranging discussions. This is an important market to us. We want to
engage in discussions in a very collegial, cooperative atmosphere. We
want to be problem solvers. We want to try to find a solution to the problem
that we have, and as I said earlier, I think when people of good faith
and good will sit down and they want to be problem solvers, generally
you can find a solution.
Alright, one more question
QUESTION (via interpreter): Let me ask a question again related to my
earlier one. You mentioned Canadian cooperation. Are you willing to cooperate
with the Canadian government to introduce the same or equivalent measures
to survey or test the cattle?
DR. PENN: I had hoped that I had addressed that earlier, but we do have
an integrated market in North America, and since Canada has had one positive
case of BSE, and now in the state of Washington we have found one animal
that tested positively, even though it came from Canada, we have tried
very diligently to harmonize our regulations. By that I mean we have tried
to harmonize our response in the remedial actions that we have taken,
and for the most part – I can't tell you 98% – but for the
most part our regulations are almost identical with Canada, and the testing
regimes are going to be such that they achieve equivalent results. So
yes, we are cooperating with Canada, we are trying to get to the point
where you can have the same assurance in the meat product form either
country because the systems would be identical or very similar.
EMBASSY PRESS SPOKESMAN: Thank you very much
DR. PENN: Yes, thank you all for coming…I enjoyed it.
# # #
|
|
|
|
|
Printable version
